Well... John L hasn't posted in this thread in more than a year so I doubt he's gonna see your reply anytime soon. Still he was a moderator and your attack on him comes off as very petty. Attacking him personally rather than attacking his ideas and arguements is not gonna win you any friends nor respect.

From the forum rules "Please avoid foul language and name calling. If you disagree with something that has been written, there is a right way and a wrong way to disagree. A spirited debate is a good thing as long as the participants can disagree without being disagreeable."

I have a few points to make in this string;at first I was pro sword & anti-gun (entirely) until I had expirience with guns (basic target shooting with a rifle my dad owns). I still prefer sword to gun but realize that unfortunately swords will most likely not be coming back to mainstream warfare.

As for the comparisson part of this debate. A gun (any form) to a sword, (also any form) is like comparring (and this is going back really far) a knife or sword to a fist.

The trainig aspect of the gun is just as hard as trainig with the sword. The gunmans training is shorter, but they both possess the same (or damn close to) quality.

Also training with either recreationally is merely that, recreational. And as I have noticed both teach and instill the value of life. either protecting or taking.

I personally think that the debate,though new is one of a long standing virtue-missile vs melee.Primitive warfare(or so as we call it,being influenced by greek strategies) relied on fighting from a distance,with little or no exposure of the warrior to direct and immediate injury.It was the predominant style till the greeks burst upon the scene.They introduced,if not for the first time in the known world,the concept of a decisive battle,where irrespective of the possibility of sustaining harm,soldiers joined battle in level fields.The concepts of western warfare have greatly been influenced by this.Guns,bows,etc are missile weapons.It seems quite logical therefore,that the wielders of the weapons which require close proximity with the opponent and his weapon look down upon them.Even though tremendous skill is reqiured to operate say a composite bow or an M60,they are not liked by those who think being face to face with a28 inch blade to be bravery.That is the reason why guns were outlawed in tokugawa japan,crossbowmen massacred in europe(chevalier sans peur et sans reproche).The point is not whether the missile weapon is inferior or not.it is that they make the killing impersonal and deatched,not any more/less dangerous.

If people before the Greeks killed from a distance, and the Greeks cahnged all this, isn't that a step back? Take WW1 as an example, old charging tactics didn't seem to work too well against machine guns, so why would the Greeks charge into a hailstorm of enemy javelins?

I don't know where you get your info on Greek warfare, but the Greeks certainly used javelins, and the peoples before them certainly engaged in close arms combat with swords and shields. The movies Troy and Alexander aren't the best examples of Greeks fighting, lol. If you've ever read the Odyssey, Iliad, or Aeneid, you would know that javelins were a huge part of their warefare. You also have to define Greeks, they were all independent city-states who were almost constantly at war with each other, except for periods like the Persian Wars. Ancinet warefare up until Gaius Marius, who redefined the Roman legions and created the world's first true (and extremely modern for it's time) professional standing army, was a giant wall of men on opposing sides of the field with whatever weapons they had from their homes/farms, charging at one another. Until Marius, there was no "archer section", or "sling section" or "javelin section" they were all clumped together in the same giant mass.

The great Greek tactic I believe you are tryin to get at is the Phalanx, which is a wall of men with interlocking shields and long spears or pikes.

Update a few years to the new Roman legions Marius instituted: The Legions were broken down into smaller units called Cohorts 100-1000 troops, much more manuveralble than a mass of 5000 guys. Secondly, all weapons, food, supplies, and armor is provided by the government, a very modern breakthrough for the "ancients".

Thirdly, all equipment was made uniform, each man provided with the same equpment for his appropriate unit. Typically along with their sword and shield, Roman Leginaries were given a couple of "Pila, pl. Pilae", which were Javelins that they threw before charging or as the enemy advanced. They also came up with the "testudo" or Turtle formation, which was a shell of shields, to protect them from missile fire.

The point here is that whether you are talking about today: with guns, "push button bombs", reomte control planes, missilesJapan: guns, swords, bow and arroweven older times (ROmans and Greeks): swords, bows, javelins, slingsthe idea of proximity has always been an issue. To say that guns are easier to kill with because they are less personal, or less honorable because you are not "up close and personal" compared with a sword is ridiculous.I have never weilded a sword or a gun, no need, no training.

Based on 1000's of years of warfare, anyone can kill anyone else with anything, regardless of age, weapon, ANY variable. The idea of killing an enemy with a minimum of danger to yourself, ie, DISTANCE/RANGE is something that has simply evolved over the centuries.

Yes, long range weapons do have a certain detachment, the enemy aint all up in ur grill, lol. But that doesn't make killing another hunam being any easier, does it?

On the idea of Honor, or Justice, or Bravery, or Courage, or Virtue, I strongly, STRONGLY recomend reading the Aenead by Virgil (Pay CLOSE attention to the ending) then making a decision on whether or not using a sword or a gun makes you more honorable/courageous/virtuous/brave/justified... or less.

I am not saying that it is easier to kill with missile weapons.I am saying that it might seem easier to peopl who were primararily into melee weapons.As for greek warfare,Ia gree entirely that javelins played a prominent part.Yet,the phalanx is certainly one of the main components of their army.quoting herodotus,'once the geeks go to war,they choose the best and the smoothest places andgo down and have battleon that'hoplite used hoplon and the right hand couched the spear between elbow and ribs.Thucydides remarked that due to this,a phalanx tended to slip to its right,each man to his neighbour's shield.Homer depicts a proto phalanx in the iliad.assyrians,persians,sumerian all had a warfare charecterised by tentativeness,fights at and from a distance,reliance on missiles and reluctance of coming at an arms length till victory ewas assured.The greeks discarded these hesitations,the battle was fought as a decisive act,and dedicated their lives to victory,at the risk of death or bloody defeat.I did mean to not say that they were the only ones to do this.I wanted to say rthat they have influenced us in a lasting way.As for the ease with which agunman or archer dispatches his target,I specifically remember saying that it was no easier to use a gun or a bow than a sword.And for my references on greek history and warfare-Vc.hanson 'the western way of war'-n hammond'the history of greece'-j.keegan'a history of warfare'-herodotus'histories'

Alright, I see what you're tryin to say. I agree on almost everything, but a few details.

I think the Herodotus quote is taken a little out of context. If I remember correctly, that quote was said by a Greek turncoat (Melanthius?), who's name escapes me. The purpose was to convince the current king of Persia to attack Greece, since they fought such decisive battles with high casualties. He himself knew the power the Greeks had, that's why their army was so massive.Also, Herodotus' descriptions of the weapons and attire of the Persian army should help show what kind of fighting the Persians did, if I remember (that's a big IF though), several of the units described primarily had swords, not javelins or slings. Herodotus IS a historian, but his account is biased nonetheless. He wrote around 70 years after the fact, so his account automatically leans towards Athens. I believe Thucidides is much better, he wrote of the Peloponnesian war in which he himself took part in.

Reread your posts, you were right about the swords/guns being easier or harder to fire, and I do agree that someone who primarily fights with a sword MIGHT feel that bows are inferior weapons, but not entirely. If bows were regarded in this way from a civilization that used swords and spears, then Odysseus would not have used a bow to kill the suitors, and their gods, especially Artemis, would not have a bow as their weapon of choice, so to speak.

If a sniper was on a hill and he shot a man 500 yards away, the victim would have no say. With a sword, the victim could have a chance against his murderer. The ancients obviously recognized the use of the former and created the bow and arrow, another weapon I detest. So basically, if you were wanting a summary to all my rambling just now, it'd be I'd prefer swords because there isn't a chance of being killed from far away without the chance to return a death blow.

And if you didn't get the stressing in my post, I am not saying guns are cheap and do not require skill. [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Uh, what "ancinets" would these be? The Greeks? They had a whole process of supplication, where warriors would grasp the knees and the chin of their attacker and beg for their lives. Read Odysseus, Herodotus, Thucidides, Virgil, or any number of Greek/Roman writers. There is always a moment where the hero will have someone supplicating at his knees, begging for their lives, and the hero will say something, then ram his sword through their throats. In the RARE case that the supplicant would be accepted, he became a slave of that person. There are also several mosaics depicting these events of supplication, so saying that someone might have a better chance against a sword than against a bow ins't necessarily true. Skill would help determine the winner there, along with countless other factors in a fight.

Roman Legionairs were given a sword, shield, and Pilae to throw. They threw them before charging, or as the enemy charged. Long range weapons are simply W E A P O N S, they are used to kill, just like swords, just like guns. People don't get extra "honor points" or "bravery points" for killing someone up close with a sword, and they don't lose "points" for throwing a spear and impaling the poor dude.

Honor was highly regarded among Greeks and Romans, especially in battle. If it was such a demeaning and cowardly thing to kill from a distance, why would they have their greatest heroes being praised for killing an enemy using their spears and javelins? Why would their gods be depicted with bows and arrows, instead of swords?

Guns exist. Their existence is a condtion of our existing in the present. Not liking them, and wishing they did not exist, is to reject reality. I prefer to accept reality, to acklowledge that the world is as it is.

As a student of the martial (pertaining to war) arts, I have trained in their use. How could I call myself a student of the martial arts and not train in ALL martial arts, both classical and modern?

Guns, bombs, rockets, etc., are the result of thousands of years of progressing military (martial) technology. The idea is to strike your enemy from a great enough distance that prevents him from striking you.

One of the primary tactics in all martial arts (both empty handed and with weapons) is to maintian a distance from your opponent whereby you can close to strike him, but step back to evade him. Is this cowardly? No, it is the way of fighting. Guns and other more recent technology are merely further advancements of this tactic.

The ways of war have always been a terrible thing. Violence between humans is always undesireable.This is, however, a part of the human condition, and we have only one choice: Do we face reality and fight, or run and hide from it? I choose to face facts and fight. To do otherwise would not only be be cowardly, but irrational.Runners must eventually stop running, and the hidden are almost always eventually discovered.

Face reality! These weapons exist, and you had better develop a plan of defence for them!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TaoistJohn:Guns exist. Their existence is a condtion of our existing in the present. Not liking them, and wishing they did not exist, is to reject reality. I prefer to accept reality, to acklowledge that the world is as it is.

As a student of the martial (pertaining to war) arts, I have trained in their use. How could I call myself a student of the martial arts and not train in ALL martial arts, both classical and modern?

Guns, bombs, rockets, etc., are the result of thousands of years of progressing military (martial) technology. The idea is to strike your enemy from a great enough distance that prevents him from striking you.

One of the primary tactics in all martial arts (both empty handed and with weapons) is to maintian a distance from your opponent whereby you can close to strike him, but step back to evade him. Is this cowardly? No, it is the way of fighting. Guns and other more recent technology are merely further advancements of this tactic.

The ways of war have always been a terrible thing. Violence between humans is always undesireable.This is, however, a part of the human condition, and we have only one choice: Do we face reality and fight, or run and hide from it? I choose to face facts and fight. To do otherwise would not only be be cowardly, but irrational.Runners must eventually stop running, and the hidden are almost always eventually discovered.

Face reality! These weapons exist, and you had better develop a plan of defence for them![/QUOTE]

True, we live in reality, where guns are the weapons, and swords and heavy steel armor have no value in wars. I'm going to assume when you say people run, that you mean people are running from reality, and not from battle.

one must also keep in mind that there is a certain connection made when someone dies or is severly wounded directly at the hands of an other in some sort of face to face combat, the gun,and other such modern marvels have enabled people to forget about the emotional aspect to war and death, so it's easier to deal it out to the enemy